Systems and Methods for the Tracking of Evidence

ABSTRACT

A system for the tagging, organization and tracking of evidence during the course of an investigation. The system generally utilizes an onsite handheld mobile computer device which is capable of taking input information including a description of evidence and a photo of evidence, reading a machine readable tag placed on the evidence, and printing an evidence bag label for identification the storage into which the evidence is placed. The handheld device can store this information in onboard memory until it is uploaded to a central server computer.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)

This application is a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) of U.S. Utility patentapplication Ser. No. 12/751,846, filed Mar. 31, 2010, and claims thebenefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/226,544,filed Jul. 17, 2009. The entire disclosure of both documents is hereinincorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

This disclosure relates to the field of systems and methods for theelectronic tracking of valuable objects and information. Specifically,the disclosure relates to the electronic tagging and tracking ofevidence and other information related to police or other investigativework for later use in judicial proceedings.

2. Description of Related Art

In the United States and many other justice systems, judges, juries, andothers involved in the judicial system rely on evidence presented at atrial, mediation, arbitration, or other formal proceeding to make adetermination as to guilt, innocence, liability, and other legalfindings. Because of its importance to such proceedings, there hasarisen an entire body of law devoted to nothing except a determinationof what may be used as evidence, how it may be presented, and what maybe inferred from it.

A good number of evidentiary rules exist to attempt to prevent thepresentation of false evidence and to make sure that material shown andused at trial is the actual material that is involved in the underlyingaction. As the evidence is often the basis for a determination, if theunderlying evidence is flawed, inaccurate, or presented inaccurately, abad determination can be made. As should be clear, it is thereforenecessary to make sure that rules are followed with regards to the chainof custody of evidence to make sure that what is presented at trial isultimately the same as what was originally located.

Nowhere is this clearer than in criminal trials. While in a civil trialevidence is just as important to the trial itself, a civil action oftendoes not involve the same type of investigatory process as a criminalinvestigation. In a criminal investigation, you will generally haveprofessional investigators working with physical evidence, providetestimony, and forensic evidence, often without even an indication ofwho the defendant will ultimately be and with the individual whoactually committed the crime being uncooperative and trying to covertheir tracks.

Because of the nature of criminal investigations, it is very importantto know that a piece of evidence located at a crime scene is the samepiece of evidence tested by a forensics lab and is ultimately the samepiece of evidence presented at trial. In a civil case, lapses in theownership of physical evidence can often be eliminated by testimony. Forexample, an individual can be placed on a witness stand and requested toindicate whether or not a certain thing is theirs. In a criminal trial,however, such testimony may not be possible as a defendant is notrequired to take the stand, and may have an increased interest to lie ordeceive. Further, in criminal situations, an increased burden of proofcan often require a much more exacting standard. Still further, the sametype of evidence may not be as important in a civil case. For example,it may be much more important that a rat was found in an apartment, thanthe same rat is presented at trial.

In a criminal action, there are often a couple of key pieces of physicalevidence. For example, one such key piece of evidence may be the gunused in a shooting. However, the gun may not be immediately connectableto the shooting as the action of the shooting has separated the gun fromthe bullet which is the more direct connection. Even if the gun islocated at the scene, the gun is rarely seen by investigators when theshooting is “occurring.” It is, therefore, necessary to connect a gun tothe bullet, and to who pulled the trigger. This can involve not only thespecifics of the gun itself, but where the gun was located (was it onthe defendant, at the scene etc.), how it is known that it fired thebullet which hit the victim (e.g. from ballistics analysis), and how itis determined that this defendant pulled the trigger (e.g. fromfingerprints, powder residues, etc.).

The specifics of these connections often mean that a gun has to passthrough numerous hands after it is collected. Further, in somesituations, there may be multiple guns located and it is important toknow which one was actually the weapon used to commit this crime. Forexample, it will generally be necessary to show that a specific firearmwas the same one found in a specific place. Further, it also may benecessary to connect that that specific firearm matches the type used inthe shooting, that ballistics information for a bullet fired from thatfirearm matches the ballistics information from a bullet taken from thevictim, and that the bullet tested is actually the bullet from thevictim. Still further, it is necessary to connect that a fingerprintfrom the defendant was taken from that same firearm, that a bulletcasing found at the scene was used by that firearm, and so on.

It should be apparent that the web of connections can grow verycomplicated very quickly. Further, this information is generally neededweeks or months after the shooting occurred and the gun was located.Should an incorrect connection be made somewhere in the process ofgetting from crime to trial, it is possible to introduce a whole slew oferrors. Thus, there is a significant chance that if a mistake is madeand an inaccurate connection is introduced, the entire web of connectioncan become flawed. If the gun taken from the scene is correctlyidentified as that which fired the bullet, but that gun was theninadvertently replaced with a different gun after the connection wasmade, a later fingerprint analysis of the “new” gun would point to thegun being used by an individual who actually has no connection with theshooting.

To try and deal with this, rigorous authentication methods havetraditionally been used to make sure that evidence is gathered, stored,tested, and handled in such a way that the connections of later evidenceto the original evidence are all maintained. This is commonly referredto as “chain of custody” and the idea is that definitive links througheach person handling the evidence can be made which tend to show thatthe same piece of evidence made it through the entire evaluation processand no substitutions were made at any point. Further, if a problem isdiscovered, chain of custody also provides for improved likelihood ofidentifying where the problem occurred either to catch a purposefultampering with evidence, to detect a faulty procedure, or even topotentially allow it to be rectified.

As should be apparent from the above, the purpose of chain of custody isto improve the chances that the same evidence is used by each of themultiple individuals that use it and assert that their results are fromit. Should a bullet be inaccurately connected to the victim, it ispossible that a piece of false evidence will inadvertently be usedbecause that inaccuracy connects the wrong gun, and probably the wrongdefendant to that victim. If the bullet from the shooting is mixed upwith the bullet from the ballistics test of the confiscated firearm, theconclusion that the gun fired the bullet used becomes automatic as thebullets (which are actually the exact same bullet) clearly “match.” Atthe same time, it should be clear that the conclusion is inherentlyflawed (and potentially completely wrong) as the proposition becameself-supporting that this was the gun used in the crime when indeed nosuch conclusion can be drawn with any accuracy due to the incorrectconnection.

In its simplest form, chain of custody is the documentation of themovement and location of a piece of evidence from the time it iscollected until it is finally presented in court. Chain of custody willgenerally involve a clear indication of the collection of the evidence,how it is stored, when the evidence is placed in different people'scontrol, and how the evidence transfers between individual's control soas to identify any chance of it being tampered with, a mistake beingmade in its identification, or it is simply being lost.

One can best understand chain of custody by recognizing that a piece ofevidence will change hands repeatedly, but the object is only a singlething. Therefore, if it is in a lab under one person's control it cannotsimultaneously be elsewhere. Further, if that individual has a uniquepiece of evidence they will probably return that same piece of evidence.So long as the pathway of that piece of evidence can be tracked, andprocedures are in place which inhibit it from getting inaccuratelyconnected to anything else, the odds of a piece of evidence travelingthrough the system with accurate connections are dramatically increased.

As should be clear from the above, the chain of custody provides for aclearer indication that the same thing is always being referenced.Should the chain be broken, there is a possibility that later evidenceis not correctly connected. Should this happen, evidence may be thrownout at trial or may be given reduced weight by a jury attempting todetermine the quilt or innocence of the specific defendant. Stillfurther, as a chain of custody indicates who has handled the evidence,should there become concern that evidence has been tampered with, it ispossible to recreate who could have done the tampering.

Because of the problems in maintaining the chain of custody in evidence,a large number of materials have arisen to try and make sure that thechain of custody is maintained. In most instances, these materialsinvolve highly manual practices and specialized collection containers toprovide for written records of who has handled a piece of evidence. Thematerials also serve to contain the specific evidence within them sothat the individual item is more easily kept tracked and is protectedfrom contamination by an outside source. These systems generally provideways to uniquely identify a piece of physical evidence. Such systems tryand make sure that an individual piece of evidence can be easily andquickly identified as the unique and specific item it is. For the mostpart, such systems provide for containers into which evidence may beplaced, labeling of containers, and identification of individuals whohandled (e.g. opened) those containers.

While these systems generally work, they are manually intensive and aresubject to concern as the containers can be misplaced, misrecorded, ormisidentified through human error. For example, an evidence bag having aunique number allows for specific identification of the evidence bag(and its contents). However, it is possible that when an individualchecks out a bag, an inaccurate identifier of the bag is entered by thehuman user creating a chain of custody concern. Similarly, the contentsof the bag may be placed back in the wrong bag leading to inaccuracies.

Still further, while physical evidence is necessary in anyinvestigation, crime scene photos, police officer notes, and othermaterials also associated with the case and necessary for investigationare not necessarily physical evidence. This information can itselfbecome evidence depending on what occurs during the investigation. Theseitems may have reduced chain of custody issues, but are often notconnected at all with the case that they support and when they do becomeevidence may have increased concerns due to them having been handleddifferently.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Because of these and other reasons, there are described herein systemsand methods for providing electronic monitoring of evidence andelectronic storage of investigatory materials. Specifically, the systemsrelate to electronic systems for identifying, storing, and evaluatingevidence. The systems utilize a combination of computer readable storageof investigatory material, along with computer storage of evidenceidentification.

There is described herein, among other things, a system for the trackingof evidence, the system comprising: an evidence tag including a machinereadable indicia; a handheld device, said handheld device including acamera and a memory; an evidence bag; a printer; and a central servercomputer; wherein, said evidence tag is designed to be attached to apiece of evidence at the time of collection in such fashion as toindicate if said evidence tag is later removed; wherein said evidence isidentified using said handheld device, an evidence entry comprising adescription and a photograph of said evidence is stored in said memory;wherein said evidence is placed in said evidence bag once said evidenceentry has been entered into said handheld device; wherein said printeris used to print an evidence bag identification label, which label isattached to said evidence bag used for said evidence in such as fashionas to allow indicate said evidence tag is later removed; wherein saidevidence entry in said memory is transferred from said handheld deviceto said central server computer and said evidence is transferred to astorage facility, and wherein said central server computer provides foran alert system which indicates when said evidence bag is to be disposedof.

In an embodiment of the system, said evidence tag includes a machinereadable code, the handheld device includes a device for reading saidmachine readable code, the machine readable code may also printed onsaid evidence bag identification label.

In another embodiment of the system, the evidence bag identificationlabel includes a machine readable code identifying said evidence bag.

In another embodiment of the system the handheld device uploads to saidcentral server computer wirelessly.

In another embodiment, the handheld device is directly connected to saidcentral server computer to transfer information to it.

In another embodiment the system further comprises: a remote terminalattached to said central server computer which can access saidinformation after it is uploaded to said central server computer, theremote terminal comprises a separate handheld scanner.

In another embodiment, the handheld device attaches internal informationto said evidence entry based on a photograph taken by said camera. Thisinternal information may be selected from the group consisting of: atime said photograph was taken, a date said photograph was taken, and alocation of said handheld device when said photograph was taken.

In another embodiment, the handheld device comprises a handheldcomputer.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 Provides an embodiment of a block diagram of a system fortracking evidence.

FIG. 2 Provides an embodiment of a login screen for a computer.

FIG. 3 Provides an embodiment of a case setup screen.

FIG. 4 Provides an embodiment of a suspect list screen.

FIG. 5A Provides an embodiment of a first entry screen for suspect data.

FIG. 5B Provides an embodiment of a second entry screen for suspectdata.

FIG. 6 Provides an embodiment of a victim list screen.

FIG. 7A Provides an embodiment of a first entry screen for victim data.

FIG. 7B Provides an embodiment of a second entry screen for victim data.

FIG. 8 Provides an embodiment of a notes or remarks entry screen.

FIG. 9 Provides an embodiment of an evidence list screen.

FIG. 10 Provides an embodiment of a first entry screen for evidence.

FIG. 11 Provides an embodiment of a second entry screen for evidence.

FIG. 12 Provides an embodiment of a third entry screen for evidence.

FIG. 13 Provides an embodiment of a photo entry screen for evidence.

FIG. 14 Provides an embodiment of a camera display screen.

FIG. 15A Provides an embodiment of a label which may be used to tagevidence.

FIG. 15B Provides an embodiment of a tag which may be used to tagevidence.

FIG. 16A Provides a screen showing selection of printing labels forevidence bags for a particular case.

FIG. 16B Provides a screen showing selection of evidence to be placed ina specific bag.

FIG. 16C Provides a screen showing that an evidence label has beenprinted.

FIG. 17 Provides an embodiment of an evidence bag and printed label.

FIG. 18 Provides an embodiment of a case list screen.

FIG. 19 Provides an embodiment of an integrated screen showing a suspectlist and details as well as date of entry.

FIG. 20 Provides an embodiment of an evidence room screen showing chainof custody.

FIG. 21 Provides for a case list as may be provided to an onsite accesscomputer from a central server.

FIG. 22 Provides an evidence list as may be provided to an onsite accesscomputer from a central server.

FIG. 23 Provides a victim list may be provided to an onsite accesscomputer from a central server.

FIGS. 24A-24F provide for various screenshots of information associatedwith a particular case.

FIG. 25 provides for a screenshot of the operation of a case filter.

FIG. 26 provides for a screenshot showing setup of an alert.

FIG. 27 provides a screenshot of an alert notification.

FIG. 28 provides a screenshot of a setup screen used to add and maintainusers of the system.

FIG. 29 provides a screenshot of an alert record screen.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT(S)

The system and methods herein will generally be discussed in conjunctionwith a collection of hypothetical evidence being collected in a criminalinvestigation. While the system can be used in conjunction with any typeof evidence collection and investigation, a criminal case is used in theexamples as it is generally more familiar to the reader and it providesan opportunity to highlight a number of specific types of evidence thatcould be collected.

To begin with, it is helpful to provide a common vocabulary for thisdiscussion. Throughout this disclosure, references to “physicalevidence” will be to items which are collected during an investigationwhich item will itself potentially be used in a resultant trial andwhich item is physically controlled during the investigatory process.Thus, physical evidence can be physically be taken back to a storagefacility, stored, and later examined or otherwise further investigated.

“Photographic evidence” will comprise evidence that cannot be physicallytaken back to a storage facility, but comprises photographs which aretaken of the evidence contemporaneously to its discovery. Photographicevidence may be of items which are themselves physical evidence or maycomprise things that cannot be taken into physical evidence. This may bebecause they are transitory in nature or because they are physicallydifficult to transport. For example, the position of a body is generallynot something that can be maintained as physical evidence. Instead, aphotograph of the position will generally be made.

“Interpretive evidence” is evidence that is collected by an investigatorand relates to their notes, thoughts, observations or other informationthey collect which is not physical or photographic. In effect, this isevidence that is subject to the interpretation of the investigator. Thismay comprise their thoughts or feelings, observations, or other materialthat is subjective to them. As example(s), it may be their commentsduring an investigation (such as describing a location in a photographor where it was taken from), personal observations or may be somethingthat they have no way of recording in another fashion. For example, aninvestigator may record what a witness told them. Interpretativeevidence may be used at trial, but is also often used as aninvestigatory aid.

While the above descriptions are utilized throughout this document, theabove are in no way intended to limit the meaning of these terms as theymay be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.

FIG. 1 provides a block diagram of the components of an embodiment of anevidence tracking system (100). In FIG. 1 there are provided twodifferent parts of the system. The first is for use at the crime scene(10). At the scene (10) a piece of evidence (E) which will need to becollected, identified, and tracked. The evidence (E) is tagged throughthe use of a tag (101) which is connected to the evidence (E) directly.The evidence (E) is also tagged by being placed in a bag or othercontainer (102).

The existence and identification of the tagged evidence (E) is enteredinto handheld computer (103) by an investigator (I). The investigator(I) will also provide additional information into the computer (103) toidentify the evidence as well as information about the evidence (E) suchas, but not limited to, identification information, photos, orobservations. The investigator (I) may also utilize the handheldcomputer (103) in the collection of additional evidence such asphotographic evidence and interpreted evidence which may be connected orunconnected to physical evidence such as, but not limited to,identification of suspects or victims, other notes, or observations. Thehandheld computer (103) will generally provide for a linking connectionassociating the tag (101), the evidence (E), the bag (102) and any otherinformation related to the case and store all this information in aninternal memory while the investigator (I) is at the crime scene. Thecomputer (103) will generally be capable of communication and may obtaininformation wirelessly from a remote location, specifically an evidencelocker or other secure evidence storage site (20) and may includeperipheral devices such as printer (111).

Once the evidence (E) has all been collected, the computer (103) andevidence (E) will jointly be presented to an evidence storage facility(20). The memory of the computer (103) is generally transferred to agenerally secured central computer system (201). The evidence (E) mayalso be placed into secure storage (203) at a related time. Thisprovides for the first check to make sure that the evidence (E) iscorrectly identified as the information transferred from the computer(103) will need to match with the evidence (E) actually provided.

Evidence (E) can be checked out from the secure storage (203) by partieswhich need access to it through the use of an onsite access (205) to thecentral computer system (201). Checking out the evidence involvesobtaining the evidence (E) and having the central system (201) beupdated to indicate that the Evidence (E) has been placed in thatindividual's control. Again, the system (201) will double check to makesure that the correct evidence (E) is checked out. When the evidence (E)is returned, the same checks occur. It is checked that the sameindividual who checked out the material is returning it and that theevidence (E) matches the records. This process will repeat for everyindividual who will access the evidence (E). Further, the onsite access(205) may allow for parties to review evidence, collate cases by anynumber of criteria, and provide for chain of custody information for useat trial to further investigations and provide for simplified evidence(E) handling.

While the above provides for a general indication of the components ofthe system (100), the system (100) is best understood by discussing thevarious pieces of the system (100) in conjunction with a hypotheticalinvestigatory activity. For purposes of this disclosure, that activitywill be the investigation of an armed crime.

To begin with, it is important to recognize that there are a variety ofpieces of information which comprise evidence. As discussed above,evidence can be physical evidence, photographic evidence, andinterpretive evidence. One benefit of the depicted embodiment of thesystem (100) is that it allows for all such evidence (E) to be collectedon a single device (103) which can be taken to the crime scene, on laterinvestigations, or otherwise transported with an investigator (I). Thedevice (103) can also provide functionality which further assists inevidence collection. Still further, an investigation is often not thedomain of only a single investigator (I). In many investigations, it isnecessary to have a variety of persons which may be directly orindirectly working on the same case and it can be desirable tointerconnect the information that they gather.

To begin the discussion, we are going to first look at the operation ofthe handheld computer (103) and how it will work in an embodiment.Generally, the computer (103) will be provided to a police officer orother investigator (I) charged with the collection of evidence (E) atthe scene of the crime (10). As the scene (10) will generally not bewithin the evidence storage facility (20), the scene (10) will beconsidered a location remote from the base of operations of theinvestigator (I). Further, the scene (10) presents the first point ofevidence (E) collection and therefore, generally, is the point wherechain of custody needs to begin.

When evidence (E) is to be collected at the scene, the investigator (I)will initialize his computer (103) to begin the collection andprocessing of evidence (E). The computer (103) may be any form ofportable computing device but will generally be a device which is easilyman-portable, useable in the palm of the hand or in a variety ofpositions, and will be rugged enough to survive the rigors of operatingin a variety of environments and weather conditions. The handheld devicemay comprise, but is not limited to, Motorola MC series devices (suchas, but not limited to, the MC55XX, MC75XX, MC90XX, and MC95XX series),Intermec CN series devices, and other devices known now or laterdiscovered which offer generally similar functionality. The device (103)will generally include memory and software designed to allow it tooperate as the handheld device (103) of the present system. It may alsoinclude communications hardware and software to allow the device (103)to communicate with other devices, computer networks, or otherinvestigatory tools. In alternative embodiments, other devices may beused as computer (103) including, but not limited to, handheld computerssuch as a Palm Pilot™ or Handspring™, Tablet computers such as an Ipad™,or smartphones such as an IPhone™, Blackberry™, or similar device.

Generally the computer (103) will be smaller than a standard laptopcomputer so as to provide for improved portability and ease of use.Specifically, the computer (103) will be designed to be easilytransportable by hand and carried on the person. It is also preferablydesigned for at least partial one-handed operation. The computer (103)will generally have a variety of functions including having externalconnection ports for connecting to other devices such as a printer (111)or a larger computer. It may also include a camera, video camera, orother visual recording capability or may include a laser or other devicedesigned to read specific types of machine readable media. It may alsoinclude positioning components such as Global Positioning System (GPS)access, internal navigational controls (such as, but not limited to, agyroscope or compass), or other components for recording the device'sposition. The device (103) can also provide for indications of how theGPS signal is retrieved and calculated and can also compute the device's(103) relative speed or direction of motion.

The computer (103) will generally include onboard computer readablememory for the storage of input from a variety of sources as well asoperational software and may include a user input device such as, butnot limited to, a keyboard, stylus, or touch screen to allow for a userto enter information into the device (103). In an embodiment, the device(103) also or alternatively includes speech recognition orspeech-to-text conversion which will allow the investigator (I) to enterinformation into the device (103) by speaking into a microphone orsimilar device and having it interpret the speech and fill in the entry.The handheld device (103) may also have access to a wireless networksuch as through a Bluetooth™, WiFi, Cellular, or other standard networkprotocol. Regardless of the type of computer (103) used, the computer(103) will generally include software, that is computer readable coderunning on memory therein, or supplied via a network connection, whichallows it to operate in accordance with the principles discussed herein.

To explain the operation of the computer (103), it is generally mostlogical to walk through a series of screens as they would appear to auser. FIG. 2 provides for an embodiment of a login screen for thecomputer (103). As the chain of custody begins when evidence isinitially collected, it is important to keep a record of who theinvestigator (I) is entering the information and using the computer(103) when it is being used for the initial classification of evidence(E). In this case, the investigator (I) is assigned an identifying code(referred to herein as a DSN) which they will enter into an appropriateentry area (210) or computer (103) to commence operation of thesoftware. The DSN may be secret, but more commonly will be public andmay be coupled with a secret password or other piece of secret materialinformation to both keep information on the computer (103) secure, andmore definitively identify the investigator (I). While such definitivesecure identification is generally preferred in most embodiments, it isnot strictly required unless necessary to support legal evidenceproceedings. It should be recognized that in alternative embodimentsother forms of identification of the investigator (I) including, but notlimited to, bioinformatic scanning, passwords, dongles or otherhardware-based identification solutions, or other technologies may beused to identify the investigator (I) who is initially gathering theevidence and working with the evidence entries. The investigator (I) mayalso be identified by a signature capture or similar technology.

Once the investigator (I) is logged in, they will move to the screen ofFIG. 3 where they will enter case information. The log-in is generallydesirable as it has now connected the investigator (I) associated withthat log-in identifier to the actions which are to be performed. Thus,this investigator (I) has initial custody of the evidence (E). Certainfields in the various screens of FIGS. 2-14 may be designated asmandatory to provide that certain information must be entered before theinvestigator (I) can advance from the screen. The specific mandatoryfields will generally depend on embodiment, however, identification ofthe investigator (I) and case (310) are generally the most likely to berequired. The system (100) will also attach the collected evidence (E)to the specific case (310) to which it is thought to be relevant. Thus,the evidence (E) will initially be collected with two identificationitems, the investigator (I) collecting it, and the case it is associatedwith. Generally, case (310) information will be newly entered at thetime the new case (310) is opened. However, should the evidence beingcollected be for a prior case (310) which was already opened, theinvestigator (I) may open the case (310) on their computer (103) or mayaccess a wireless or other network connection and download relevant caseinformation directly to their computer (103) so as to add to it. Theinvestigator (I) may also enter the information as a new case withoutrecognition at the time it is entered that it is connected to a priorcase. Such connection may be made at a later time when more informationis known and may be done at the central server computer (301).

As should be apparent from FIG. 3, the case identifying information caninclude identifying information for the case including the case number(310), the relevant investigatory agency or jurisdictional authority(312), and details of the incident date (314), type (316) and location(318). Once the case information has been entered, evidence is ready tobe collected to be attached to the case (310).

In the present embodiment, evidence (E) is all collected in connectionwith the case (310) and is stored in connection with that identifiedcase (310). In this way it is relatively straightforward to determinewhat evidence (E) is necessary in the trial or other proceedingsassociated with the case (310). Further, such case (310) connections arean easily understood way for users to connect the evidence (E) which iscollected and associated together. However, in an alternativeembodiment, the case (310) connection is unnecessary and the evidence(E) may be connected using another connection method, or no connectionat all.

Because there are a number of different types of evidence (E) that maybe collected, or even that may exist or be created at this time, thecomputer (103) provides for a variety of different screens that allowfor entry of information to identify and catalog evidence (E). A menu ofthese may be obtained by activating the menu key (401) and indicatingwhich type of information is desired to be entered.

The first type of evidence (E) we will discuss here is suspectinformation. This is discussed first merely to provide order to thediscussion herein, it should be recognized that, in an embodiment, aninvestigator (I) can enter the types of evidence discussed herein in anyorder and need not complete any entry before beginning on another.Suspect information is usually interpreted evidence and will generallycomprise information collated by the investigator (I) to identify apotential suspect. In some cases, the information may be relativelyspecific pointing to a specific known individual. In other cases, onlybasic, general, identifying information may be known. In still furthercases, a suspect may be relatively unknown at the time of initialevidence (E) collection.

If there is a suspect in the incident, information about that suspectmay be entered into the system (100) to store that information inconjunction with the case. FIG. 4 provides for an indication of asuspect list screen (410). In this depiction, there are no suspects yetentered so the list area is empty. The investigator (I) would select new(412) in order to begin a new suspect entry. Should there already besuspects listed, the edit (414) and delete (416) functions could also beused.

This form of evidence list (410) where there is a list of previouslyentered evidence of a particular type available and a place to edit, addto, or delete information will be common throughout the variouscollection and classification mechanisms of the depicted embodiment. Ineffect, the computer (103) will provide a list of all types ofinformation that have been previously collected and will allow theinvestigator (I) to either edit previous information (for example, ifnew items are learned) to enter new information, or to delete oldinformation. In this way, the handheld device (103) computer (205) orcentral computer (201) can be used in the same fashion that atraditional investigator (I) may have used a note pad. It should be alsobe noted in FIG. 4 that the different types of evidence, including thesuspects (400), victims (700), physical evidence (800), and notes (1500)are all accessible by tabs so that all evidence (E) in the case (310) isaccessible.

For ease of reference, the suspect or other entry of a single piece ofevidence (E) is identified herein as an “evidence entry.” An evidenceentry is generally all interrelated information pertaining to a single“thing” that “thing” being a piece of evidence. It should be recognizedthat such “thing” may be a physical thing (e.g. a gun) may be a personor other individual (e.g. a dog, or a suspect), may be somethingtransitory (e.g. a blood spatter pattern, a position of a body), or maybe an observation or note. Further, individual pieces of evidence may berelated (e.g. a gun and casing from the bullets it fired). In order toprovide for segregated entry, each piece of evidence may be consideredto correspond to an evidence entry, thus each entry is effectively apiece of evidence, regardless of type of relationship to other entries.Each entry would be listed by type in a list such as list (410).Therefore, the evidence entries together catalog all the evidence (E)collected.

FIGS. 5A and 5B provide for a place to enter information about thesuspect adding details to that evidence entry. This can include theirnames (510) (512) and (514), alias (516), vital statistics (518),address (520), current contact information (522) and notes (524) shouldadditional information be desired and there is no specific entry pointfor it. The status of the suspect (526) may also be entered. Each entrypoint may provide for free form fields, or may provide for a selectionof prepared choices. For example, the name field will generally allowfor a user to enter any word as names are often unique and even similarnames may reflect differences in spelling or pronunciation. For a fieldsuch as the user's gender, however, there are generally limited optionsin that a suspect is either male, female or unknown. The differentscreens of entry points for information are generally accessible by tabs(501) and (503).

It should be recognized that in an embodiment, the system (100) does notrequire that all information be present in order to record the knowninformation, and may even provide for the ability to enter a detail thatindicates a lack of knowledge. For example, while a suspect's gender islimited to male or female, the field may include alternative entrieswhich would allow for an investigator (I) to enter other informationabout gender. For example, the field may allow a user to indicate thatthe gender is currently unknown (e.g. that no details of the suspect areknown), that the gender is unclear (e.g. that there is an indication ofgender, but it is uncertain), or even that the gender is not one of thetwo standard choices (e.g. that a suspect is a non-human animal).

The ability to enter additional information is an important feature ofan embodiment of the system. While the system (100) is designed to enterexpected information and to provide for easy organization of expectedinformation, it will generally also be the case that the system isversatile enough to handle the unexpected. In the investigation ofcrimes, it is often the case that information is limited, contradictory,or even unbelievable. In these situations, it can be important that auser of the system (100) be able to provide for interpretative evidencein a freeform fashion and that they not be constrained by what thesystem (100) thinks comprises necessary information. For this reason,virtually every input has a free entry area, such as notes (524), whereinterpretative evidence may be entered by the user without constraint.

In an embodiment, the handheld computer (103) will include the abilityto take digital or other pictures as part of its functionality.Therefore, the screen of FIG. 5A also provides for the ability to take(528) and delete (532) pictures that are associated with this particularsuspect. In this embodiment, the picture (534) is then directly attachedto the suspect information to allow them to be stored together.Generally, the picture (534) will be obtained directly by a cameraonboard the handheld computer (103) which may be used to take a pictureof a suspect who is at the scene. Alternatively, the picture (534) mayadded to the file using another method of information capture. Forexample, if the victim has a picture of the suspect on their digitalcamera, the file may be directly downloaded from their camera to thehandheld computer (103) and then stored as the suspect picture (534).

It should be apparent that the suspect and notes storing component ofthe system (100) is designed to provide for information directly relatedto people potentially involved in the incident. This will only rarely bephysical evidence (although there may be a connection to physicalevidence) but will instead comprise photographic evidence orinterpretative evidence that is collected by the user. Thus, the system(100), in this embodiment, serves as both a notepad whereby theinvestigator (I) can record information that they think may be valuable,and also allows those notes to be used and referenced.

The computer (103) can also provide additional information to theevidence entry. In an embodiment, the computer (103) provides suchinformation from its own access and resources. For example, the computercould provide a system time and date or may attach GPS coordinatesindicating where the photo was taken. There may also be provided anindication of the GPS signals accuracy or if it matches with an internalposition calculation. The device (103) could also provide a compasssignal to indicate the direction the device (103) was facing at the timea photo was taken or could provide more esoteric information, such as ifthe computer (103) could detect a wireless network at the time or thespeed at which text was entered.

Once the information of a suspect has been entered by the investigator(I) to the point where the investigator (I) is satisfied with thecompleteness of the entry, the suspect information is saved as anevidence entry identified as information on the suspect and the entry islisted in area (410). As should be apparent, depending on the specificinformation available, the amount of information entered may vary widelyin completeness with some entries having virtually complete informationwhile others may comprise information in only a single field. Therecordation of the suspect effectively starts the chain of custody ofthis piece of evidence (if needed) as it is now associated with the caseand investigator (I) who entered it.

Like suspects, there are often people who are not suspects but whereinformation recorded is useful. One very clear case is that there mayalso be victims of the incident and these are discussed in conjunctionwith FIGS. 6, 7A and 7B. The pages of entry are very similar and providefor a listing of victims associated with the incident (610) which may bemanipulated by adding new entries (612), editing existing entries (614)or deleting entries (616), as discussed above. Further, the sameinformation is used as for suspects including victim's names (710) (712)and (714), aliases (716), vital statistics (718), address (720), contactinformation (722) and freeform notes (724). Again, photos (734) can betaken (728) and connected with the case or may be deleted (732) later,and the information screens are accessible by tabs (701) and (703).Internal device information such as date, time, location, and others mayalso be added.

In a further embodiment, while the depicted embodiment is limited tostoring information on suspects and victims, menu tabs can also beprovided for similar information on witnesses, bystanders, or presentinvestigators (I), should such information be considered worth recordingat the time. As such entry would be very similar to the entry ofinformation on suspects and victims, it is not separately discussed asthe methodology is clear from the above.

As should be apparent, the ability to connect pictures with the case canbe very useful. For example, if the victim needs to be found, inclusionof a picture can provide for potentially useful information later.Further, the inclusion of a picture can help insure that victims andsuspects which may share names with other victims or suspects areappropriately kept separate or are kept together as appropriate.Further, the appearance of an individual at the time the evidence entryis created can be very useful. For example, should a witness identifythat a suspect has a beard, and the suspect, when first located has abeard that they later shave, the fact that they had a beard at the timeof the incident has been recorded. Similarly, if a victim had visiblebruises, these could be recorded. The handheld computer's (103) abilityto take such pictures provides for further benefit as it means thatthere is less likelihood of a picture being separated or lost from theinformation about the suspect, victim, eyewitness, or other relevantperson prior to entry and provides that the investigator (I) has readyaccess to a camera. Further, the ability of the device (103) to combinethis information with other available information such as, but notlimited to, date, time, location, facing, or the like can providevaluable additional description of the picture.

FIG. 8 provides for a general remarks area (1504) whereby any additionalinformation which does not make sense to be included anywhere else canbe entered (812), edited (814), or deleted (816). Again, thisinformation is connected with the specific case and is stored as anevidence entry (1502) along with a date/time recordation stamp or otherprovided information. As discussed above, there is always thepossibility of an investigator (I) feeling that information which doesnot fit into the established material framework of the system (100)needs to be recorded. As one example, if the temperature could have aneffect on the way something appeared, that may be a useful piece ofinterpretive evidence to record in the notes area.

While the collection of information related to individuals involved inthe incident is important and provides for useful functionality, in mostsituations the vast majority of the evidence to be collected will not berelated to identification of parties, but will be related to physicalevidence left at the scene, or collected during later investigatoryactivity. Further, in the above described components of the system(100), individuals are usually more transitory. That is, the entrystands alone as evidence (or works in conjunction with a person whichcannot be easily confined to an evidence locker). Therefore, the chainof custody of the evidence is often limited to the photographic andother information in the evidence entry itself and chain of custody ofthe individual may not be as important. When it comes to physicalevidence, however, the evidence itself is often stored in addition tothe information in the computer system (100). Thus, storage can requireconnections that are not necessary for information on individuals.

FIGS. 9-14 are directed to screens for the collection of physicalevidence. Much of the data gathering of the system (100) is focused onthe collection and identification of physical evidence due to theincreased chain of custody requirements. In FIG. 9 there is provided, aswith the suspects (410) and victims (610), a list (910) of the physicalevidence which has been collected. In this case, there is only an entry(1402). Thus, the only physical evidence collected is the firearmbelieved to have been used in the incident, a .357 magnum revolver.

Associated with the evidence entry for the revolver are a variety ofinformational items directed to that piece of evidence (E) including,but not limited to, descriptions and related identifications. As thingsare often less “individual” than suspects or other persons involved inthe case, it is often necessary to make a piece of evidence “moreindividual.” To use a simple example, if 20 shell casings of identicalmake and caliber are found at a scene in different locations, it may benecessary to keep track of which were found where as they may have beenfired by different guns.

In order to make individual pieces of evidence (E) more unique, eachpiece of evidence (or a group of pieces of evidence if appropriative)can have a unique identifier associated with it. Some embodiments ofsuch tags (1501) and (1503) are shown in FIGS. 15A and 15B. In apreferred embodiment, this tag (1501) or (1503) is attached directly orindirectly to the evidence so that the evidence item plus tag (1501) or(1503) becomes a more readily identified “individual” item. It ispreferred that the tag (1501) or (1503) be attached to the evidence (E)in a generally permanent fashion or in a fashion where the tag's (1501)or (1503) removal would be relatively easily to detect. As the tag(1501) or (1503) and evidence (E) combination is being used to make theevidence (E) more unique and improve the ability to segregate thisevidence (E) from similar evidence, it is important to detect shouldsomething happen which would compromise that connection. By making theremoval of the tag (1501) or (1503) more easily detectable, such removalwould need to be explained.

In order to allow for tagging of evidence (E), an investigator (I) willgenerally be provided with a plurality of tags which can be used on theevidence (E) during the investigation. These may be provided with thehandheld computer (103) as part of a kit or may be printed by a printer(111) associated with the handheld computer (103). Embodiments of suchtags (1501) and (1503) are shown in FIGS. 15A and 15B. The tags willgenerally include at least a portion which is self-adhesive and maycomprise labels (1501) as provided in FIG. 15A or attachable suspendedtags (1503) as provided in FIG. 15B. The attachable suspended tag format(1503) will generally be preferred as it provides for greater ease inattaching the tag (1503) to a variety of different things.

In the embodiments of FIG. 15B the tag (1503) comprises a tag ofgenerally barbell shape having two wide ends (1531) and a narrowerconnection center (1533). The ends (1531) will generally include acomputer readable identifier (1535) and may include a human readableidentifier (1537) as well. The tag (1503) may also include otherinformation such as, but not limited to, an identification of theinvestigatory authority, a manufacturer's marking, or a tamperindicator. The tags (1503) may be paper or may comprise alternativematerials such as plastic. In the depicted embodiment, paper tags areused for ease of printing. In order to inhibit damage to tags (1501) or(1503) printer (111) may utilize thermal image transfer or a similartechnology that inhibits the ink from being damaged by exposure tolight, heat, or moisture. The tags (1503) may also include a plasticcover surface or may be treated so as to protect the printing of the tag(1503) from water or other liquid damage.

Generally the back side (1557) of the wide ends (1531) will be removableso as to provide for an adhesive surface to allow the tag (1503) to bestuck to itself, or to a piece of evidence (E). The center section mayalso comprise such adhesive and the backing may be designed to beremoved as a singular piece or as multiple pieces. The adhesive providedwill generally be designed to be considered a generally permanentadhesive so that the adhesive will bond securely to a variety ofsurfaces. Specifically, in the Embodiment of FIG. 15B, the adhesive willgenerally have sufficient adhesive strength such that if the two ends(1531) of the tag (1503) are adhered together, the tag (1503) will moreeasily rip than the adhesive will separate. This provides that onceattached to the piece of evidence (E), the tag (1503) is generally onlyremoved by a destructive act to the tag (1503), making such removaldetectable.

The alternative embodiment of FIG. 15A provides for a more standardshaped label (1501) which is used as a tag. This label (1501) is a morestandard rectangular shape and also includes a computer readableidentifier (1515), human readable identifier (1517), and indication ofmanufacturer (1519) and may be constructed in any of the fashionsdiscussed for the embodiment of FIG. 15B. Again, it may have a removablesurface on the back (1527) which can be peeled to expose an adhesive.

The tag (1503) will generally be preferred over the label (1501) as itis generally easier to attach to a variety of different types ofevidence (E) without necessarily damaging or hindering access to theunderlying evidence (E) and still being readable. The label (1501) willgenerally work well on flat surfaces which it can be directly contact to(for instance a piece of glass) but will often not work well if it needsto go around a component or may need to be removed to perform testing onthe evidence (E). The former is problematic as the curve applied to thelabel (1501) may make it difficult for a machine to read the machinereadable indicia (1515) or to attach the label (1501) to oddly shapedmaterials or those that resist the attachment of labels (1501) (forexample those with a grainy or rough surface). The other problem is thatthe attachment of the label (1501) could cover a valuable piece ofevidence (E) and removal of the label (1501) is designed to bedifficult. For example, if the evidence (E) is a sheet of paper, removalof the label (1501) would generally result in damage to the evidence(E), and not just the tag (1501), which may be undesirable in certaincircumstances.

Generally, the tag (1501) or (1503) will be attached to the evidence (E)by the initial investigator (I) at the time the evidence (E) is beingcollected. This will often be done initially upon collection; however,in some circumstances it may be necessary to produce photographs of theevidence (E), such as, but not limited to, showing its positioning,prior to the evidence (E) being handled in any way. In this situation,the evidence (E) may first be photographed (at least partially) prior tothe tag (1501) or (1503) being attached.

The attachment of the tag (1501) or (1503) to the piece of evidence (E)creates a piece of tagged evidence. generally, it will be the case thata single tag (1501) or (1503) is used for each single evidence entry inthe computer system (100). Thus, if a single tag (1501) or (1503) isused on many items which are located together (for example a stack ofmoney), the stack is treated as an individual evidence entry. Thismethodology is by no means required, however.

FIG. 9 provides for the entry of individual pieces of evidence (E) inthe same fashion that suspects and victim entries were discussed above.As the general listing of entries is similar, no further discussion isprovided herein. In order to provide for improved identification, Asshown in FIGS. 15A and 15D, the tag (1501) and (1503) will generallyinclude both a human readable indicia (1517) or (1537) and a machinereadable indicia (1515) or (1535) where the human readable indicia(1517) or (1537) corresponds to the machine readable indicia (1515) or(1535) which, in this case is a barcode. As the tag (1501) or (1503) isnow associated with the particular piece of evidence (E), these indiciamay now be used as an identifying name for the evidence.

In FIG. 10, the investigator (I) can enter the human readable indicia(1517) or (1537) into the system (100) via box (1002). Alternatively oradditionally, the tag (1501) or (1503) can be electronically entered viathe machine readable indicia (1515) or (1535) utilizing an onboardfunction of the computer (103) capable of reading the machine readableindicia (1515) or (1535). This may comprise a laser or otherwisespecialized component of the handheld computer (103), may compriseutilizing the onboard camera to take a pictures of the indicia (1515) or(1535) which picture is then interpreted by software on board thehandheld computer (103) or another function. As the evidence entry(1402) has now been made, like in the situations above, the user canthen enter additional identifying information about the evidence. Thiscan include, among other things, the owner of the evidence (1004) and(1006). In this case the owner is a known suspect as indicated in box(1004), the suspect listed previously in FIGS. 5A and 5B. Therefore, thesystem allows selection of already entered suspects and is selected viaa menu providing the suspect entries already associated with the case.

A variety of other selectable or typeable fields can be included in theidentification depending on the needs of the investigator (I). Forexample, if it is known that the evidence (E) was used in the incident,but it is unknown who the suspect may be, the owner may be listed as asuspect—unknown in box (1004) to point out that the object is likelyconnected with the suspect, but the suspect is unknown at the time ofentry. Similarly the evidence can be connected with other known orunknown parties and affiliations. For example, should a gun be found atthe scene of a stabbing, its connection with the case may be completelyunknown and may be identified as such. In the event that the evidence(E) is not connected yet with a person having an evidence entry underone of the other sections, the box (1006) may not utilize the search andmay allow new typed entries, or may gray out to inhibit entry therein.

The identifying information for the evidence (E) will also generallyprovide for a type of evidence (1008) along with an indication of itsconnection with the incident. There may also be certain uniformidentifiers (1010) related to categories used by police agencies andcertain parties to allow for their own classification of materials. Thiscan be valuable as certain types of evidence (E) may need to be storedin particular facilities, under particular conditions, or may havespecific disposal requirements. There is also a place where adescription by the recording officer can be entered (1012) to providefor other free form information.

In FIG. 11 there is provided a screen showing other information aboutthe piece of evidence (E). As the physical evidence generally requiresdifferent information than a suspect listing, for example, this screenmay provide for specialized information about the evidence (E).Specifically, the disposition field (1014) discusses what to do with thepiece of evidence once the case is completed or should it turn out thatthe evidence is unneeded or unrelated to the case. Thus, should a pieceof evidence (E) be collected which appears to have no connection to theincident, the item can be disposed of to avoid it taking up space inevidence storage. Similarly, the listing includes a unit of measure(1016).

The unit of measure (1016) can be particularly useful for certainevidence (E) where there may be more than one “item” collected at onceand placed in a single evidence entry, for example, currency or illegaldrugs. In the currency situation, it may be desirable to calculate thequantity (1018) of currency in total money (e.g. if $57 was found in thevictim's wallet or if a stack of bills contained $1000). Alternatively,it may be useful to keep note of the type of bills located (e.g. 100 $1bills) or may be useful to utilize a more combined approach (e.g. 1 rollof quarters). Similarly with drugs and other bulk items, knowing if ameasurement is made in grams, pounds, or other units of measurement canbe helpful. These amounts can be valuable as they allow for furtheridentification of the evidence (E) and can allow for the quantity (1018)to be put in using whatever measuring devices may be handy at the time.The quantity (1018) may be entered directly by the investigator (I), ormay be calculated and entered directly by a peripheral connected to thehandheld computer (103). For example, a digital scale could be connectedto the handheld computer (103) to provide for a precise weight at thetime of collecting. Even if the scale is not directly attached, thescale readout could also be recorded by utilizing a photograph showingthe evidence (E) and scale readout as part of the evidence entry.

FIG. 12 provides for a place to indicate where the evidence (E) waslocated. This can provide for address information (1020) and contactinformation as used for suspects, but also provides an open descriptionbox (1024) to allow for the user to enter freeform information. Thus, ifthe evidence (E) was located on a person, the address information couldbe entered of where the person was located, and the location on theperson of the item could described. Similarly if the device was hidden,the hiding place can be described. It should be noted that the differententry screens of 10, 11 and 12 are accessible by tabs (1001), (1003),and (1005).

FIGS. 13 and 14 are directed to the storage of photographs inconjunction with the piece of evidence (E). As indicated above, therecordation of photographic evidence of the evidence at the time theevidence is collected can allow for additional information to bemaintained. Further, some evidence (E) cannot be removed and stored fortrial. For example, it is generally impossible to record the specificlocation where evidence (E) was found as the location is nottransportable and a description may be somewhat subjective. In suchsituation, photographic evidence in conjunction with physical evidencemay be useful. As many of the handheld computers (103) suitable for usein the system (100) will include internal digital cameras, the system(100) allows for the onboard camera to be used in conjunction withrecordation of such photographic evidence. As discussed previously, thiscan also be combined with system information to provide furtherexplanation of the photos such as, but not limited to, date, time,location, or device (103) facing.

Further, placement of the evidence (E) with other supportinginformation, such as a photograph of where it was located or with itemssuch as a ruler or other common identifier can also be helpful inunderstanding the evidence (E). For example, should evidence (E) belocated in a particular room or be at a particular position on thefloor, a photograph showing the position may prove useful later.Further, making photographs of the evidence (E) contemporaneously withits collection can provide further indications that the evidence (E)indicated is uniquely identified. A photo at the time can also showspecific characteristics of the evidence (E) such as, but not limited toa distinctive scratch on a grip or the position in which the tag (1501)or (1503) is placed.

FIG. 13 provides for the picture to be connected with the specificevidence (E) contemporaneously with the evidence's (E) collection in asimilar fashion to the use of photographs of suspects or victimsdiscussed previously. As can be seen, in this screen the picture (1334)is shown along with a description (1320) which can be entered aboutwhere the picture is taken, angles, dates, backgrounds or any otheruseful information. The description (1320) will also generally be usedto identify the photo in photo list (1326). The system also providessystem entered information such as, but not limited to, the date, time,location and direction the picture was taken to also be provided in theentry (1330).

As should be apparent from FIG. 13, the evidence (E) may have multiplephotos connected to it. Because of this, the photo list (1326) is usedto provide for a larger collection. Further, the screen of FIG. 13provides for more manipulation tools to show increased functionalitysuch as allowing a user to enter multiple new photos (1324), reshoot oredit existing photos (1328), or delete photos (1332). The descriptioncan also be edited (1322). FIG. 14 simply shows an internal camera view(1434) of the handheld computer (103) as would be used when taking thepicture.

Once the information on the physical evidence has been entered to thesatisfaction of the investigator (I) using the screens of FIGS. 9-14,the evidence entry (1402) is completed for the physical evidence. Asshould be apparent, the electronic file is already linked to thephysical evidence (E) by means of the tag indicia (1537) or (1517) shownin box (1002). However, it will generally be desirable to provide forfurther connection and to improve ease of storage of the evidence (E).Often, the evidence (E) needs to be relatively isolated from the outsideenvironment. Specifically, the evidence (E) will need to be examined forfingerprints or particles of substance which may be on it and it isnecessary to make sure that alternative elements are not introduced bytransportation or storage. In these cases, the evidence (E) is generallystored in evidence bags which serve to provide some isolation.

Evidence bags are generally used to prepare the evidence (E) fortransport to a particular storage facility, for storage, and for laterprocessing and evaluation. It is rarely the case that evidence (E)collected at the scene needs to have nothing further done with it.Instead, evidence (E) is usually transported to a secure storagefacility where it can be stored and available for analytics to beperformed thereon, and can be stored long term in preparation for trial.This will often be carried out by placing one or more pieces of evidence(E) from the case in an evidence bag (1702) for storage. While evidencebags are generally of a common design, each evidence bag is generallyindividually labeled in a fashion which connects the evidence (E) in thebag to the bag (and the bag in turn is then connected to the chain ofcustody). The evidence bag (1702) is generally labeled so as to indicatewhat evidence (E) is stored in the bag and what case the evidence (E) isconnected with.

In an embodiment of the present device, once sufficient evidence hasbeen collected to be bagged, the investigator (I) will generally preparea custom bag label as shown in FIG. 17 by having the handheld computer(103) utilize a printer (111) to print the label (1701). Where theprinting of a bag label (1701) occurs depends on embodiment but willoften occur either at the scene, with the Investigator having beenprovided with a “table top” or “desk top” type, or other type, ofprinter, or may occur at the storage facility (20) prior to the evidence(E) being checked into secured storage (203). Generally, having the baglabels (1701) printed at the storage facility (20) is preferred as itmeans the Investigator (I) does not need to carry a printer which maytake up additional space. However, certain investigatory authoritiesutilize crime scene vans or trucks which allow for increased processingof evidence at the scene. In such a situation, such a vehicle may carrythe printer (111) and provide access at the scene.

In addition to the bag label (1701), in an embodiment the handheldcomputer (103) may also generate other paperwork associated with theevidence. This can include, but is not limited to, evidentiary forms,deposit forms, and request forms. In an embodiment, the handheldcomputer (103) can actually use the evidence (E) already stored on itssystem to issue a citation, warrant, court document, or other documentbased on the evidence (E). For example, if a certain crime was dependenton having a certain amount of an illicit substance on one's person (e.g.more than 1 gram), if the system (100) had records of more than 1 gramof the substance as having been collected, a citation for that crimecould be issued directly from the printer (111). This can eliminate theneed to connect the evidence to the citation as the citation can bedirectly connected to the relevant evidence (E) via the system (100) atthe time the citation is issued and the evidence collected. This can beparticularly useful where the criminal penalty involves paying a fineand confiscation of the evidence as it allows the handheld device topartially automate and integrate the actions of collecting the evidence,issuing the citation, and storing the information for trial (if needed).

Regardless of where the bag labels (1701) are printed, they aregenerally printed prior to the evidence (E) being sent into securedstorage (203) and will often be printed by action of the handheldcomputer (103) instead of central computer (201) or other remotecomputers (205) so that the bag's (1702) are labeled prior to theevidence entries being uploaded from the handheld computer (103) to thecentral computer (201). FIGS. 16A, 16B, and 16C provide for screens toload the evidence list (910) from the current case and then print anevidence bag label (1701), such as that shown on FIG. 17 as the evidence(E) is gathered at the scene. FIG. 16A allows for selection of thecurrent case (1602) from a list of cases (1610), FIG. 16B provides alist of the present evidence in this case (1612) and FIG. 16C providesfor loading and printing (1614). It should be noted that any paperworknecessary as an evidence report could also be printed using the same orsimilar system.

As shown in FIG. 17, the evidence bag label (1701) will generallyindicate the relevant investigatory authority (1703) that has theevidence (E) and will include a machine readable identifier of the bag(1705) which will be associated with the specific case (1707). The label(1701) then also includes an indicator (1709) of the evidence (E) withinthe bag (1702). This can include a description as well as reprints ofthe machine readable (1515) or (1535) and/or human readable (1517) or(1537) identifier corresponding to the evidence tag (1501) or (1503) onthe evidence (E).

The inclusion of the tag (1501) or (1503) allows for evidence, whenchecked out, to be reconnected to the bag (1702) and for the bag (1702)to itself be connected to the case (310) in the same way the evidence(E) it contains is connected. For example, when the evidence (E) isplaced in the bag (1702), the tag (1501) or (1503) on the evidence (E)and the tag (1701) on the bag (1702) may both be read by the device(103). If they match, the machine OKs putting the evidence (E) in thebag (1702). If they do not, the device (103) indicates that the tags(1501) or (1503) do not match and that the wrong piece of evidence (E)may be being placed in the bag (1702). Similarly when the evidence (E)is removed from the bag (1702), the party removing it can scan both thetag (1501) or (1503) and the bag label (1701) to indicate that theevidence (E) in the bag (1702) is still the evidence (E) indicated onthe bag (1702). In this way, should a party be working with similarpieces of evidence (E) and inadvertently get the two items crossed, theproblem will be quickly corrected and the evidence chain will remainsolid. Essentially, the bag (1702) and evidence (E) tag (1501) or (1503)co-identification provides for one further assurance that the evidence's(E) custody has been maintained. In the depicted embodiment, the machineindicator (1515) or (1535) is not used in favor of the human readableindicator (1517) or (1537).

Once evidence (E) has been bagged, it is essentially ready for depositwith an evidence locker and will be prepared for transport. Generally,the evidence bags (1702), along with the investigator (I) and thehandheld computer (103) will be transported to a central storagefacility (20). The central storage facility (20) will generally comprisea hardware facility for the storage of the physical evidence (e.g. anevidence locker) (203) along with a central computer system (201)designed to inventory the contents of the hardware facility (203). Uponarriving at the facility (20), the evidence (E) will be presented to thehardware facility (203) for storage and the handheld's (103) memory,including all the evidence entries, may be transferred to a centralcomputer system (205). Such central storage (20) is generally used bothto store the physical evidence (E) and to store the electronic evidenceentries to provide for increased security and safety of data andevidence while also allowing for others to access the data.

The data may be uploaded to the central computer (201) from the handheldcomputer (103) by any means known to one of ordinary skill. In anembodiment, the information will be uploaded wirelessly or via anotherremote network either directly from the handheld computer (103) or via acar mounted computer or laptop computer that the handheld computer (103)is connected to. In another embodiment, the handheld computer (103) maybe taken to the physical facility (20) and then plugged into orotherwise connected to the central computer (205) and the data isuploaded as the evidence (E) is placed into storage.

Generally, the information on the handheld computer (103) will beuploaded to the central computer (201) relatively simultaneously withthe physical evidence (E) being presented for storage in the locker(203). This will therefore allow for the chain of custody to be securelypassed to the next person. As the evidence (E) is all securely in bags(1702) and the correct items being in the correct bags was verified whenthe items were placed in the them, the bags (1702) are generally checkedinto the facility (203) along with the evidence entries from thehandheld computer (103) being provided to the central computer (205). Inan embodiment, when the computer records of the evidence entries areuploaded, the bags (1702) are scanned and the computer determines thatall bags (1702) listed are present. Assuming this is correct, thecustody of the evidence (E) is transferred to the custodian of theevidence locker (203) who will store the evidence (E) until it isneeded.

Once the evidence (E) has been placed in centralized storage (203), thehandheld computer (103) can either have its memory deleted, freeing upspace for the next investigation, or may maintain a duplicate record ofthe evidence entries for continuing investigation. Generally, thehandheld computer (103) will retain a copy of the record (to allow forupdating) until the record is purposefully deleted. Regardless of whathappens, at this time the handheld computer (103) may no longer have amaster record of the evidence entries. That will often be maintained atthe central computer system (201). In an embodiment, the system (100)will utilize a hierarchical arrangement of information where the systemon the central computer (201) is the highest in the hierarchy with othercopies of the entries below it, however, the master record may be therecord with the most recent or most current set of information orevidentiary findings, as defined by the most current time and date whenany entry was engaged. In this way, records are updated to include thenewest information regardless of where the information is entered.

Once the evidence (E) is in storage and the information is on thecentral computer (201), additional functionality may be provided.Specifically, the data is no longer unique to the original handheldcomputer (103) on which it was entered but is now placed centrally andcan be accessed via any device (205) capable of accessing information onthe network, including the central computer (201). It should berecognized that computer (205) will generally provide similarfunctionality to the handheld computer (103), but may provideconsolidated or more detailed information in each screen due to a largerscreen size. However, the general storage and access functionality willbe similar to that shown in FIGS. 2-14. In one mode of operation, thiswill allow an investigator (I) in the field to add information to aspecific open case they are working on by accessing the information. Itmay also allow for a new party to take custody of the evidence andattach further information to the evidence entry. To load existing caseinformation the investigator (I) may utilize a list of cases such as thelist (1803) in FIG. 18. Search capability can also be provided.

For example, when a gun's serial number is matched to an owner who is asuspect, the person who performs the match can provide the additionalpiece of information to the evidence entry for the gun and/or suspect.Similarly, if the investigator (I) was to locate and arrest a suspect inthe case and the suspect had a firearm on them of a type which was usedin the crime, the arresting officer may access the evidence entries ofthe case (310) from their handheld computer (103) and add the additionalevidence entry for the gun to the record of this case (310). They mayalso add a picture of the suspect, for example, if one had notpreviously been part of the record. They may also do this directly fromthe evidence room (203) at the time the suspect is brought in.

This updating may occur in a still further embodiment by accessing themaster file directly via a network connection of the handheld computer(103) or depending on functionality, the computer (103) or (205) may notaccess the master copy directly, but the computer (103) or (205) may beable to access the case (310) via a reference number or other identifierso that the new evidence (E) can be connected to the case (310) when thehandheld (103) is allowed to update by being linked at a later time.

This last embodiment can be particularly useful in a situation wherethere is concern of the handheld computer (103) being used to obtainunauthorized access to certain information and thus the flow of data isdesigned to be more one directional. Similarly, in an embodiment, thedevice (103) can have access to software which can provide a remotekill, for example, where its memory can be deleted or its functionalitycan be destroyed by a remote action should the device (103) be lost orstolen. An investigator (I) who knows that there is an open case (310)can obtain the reference of that case (310) from the handheld computer(103), but cannot access the details of the evidence already collected.Instead, they simply enter their new details, and that information isallowed to flow to the central server (205) where it is connected withthe already open case (310).

To access and add to information on a case (310), the investigator (I)may have access to all cases on the central computer (201) via theirhandheld computer (103), or may have access to only those cases theyhave previously worked on or are specifically provided access to. Thelatter will generally be preferred as it helps to make sure that eachinvestigator (I) is not overwhelmed with a long list of open cases whenthey are trying to locate the one they are investigating. However, itdoes not provide the ability for an investigator (I) to connect evidenceto a case other than those they are working on.

In addition to providing all the above functionality on the handheldcomputer (103), the information may also be provided via the centralcomputer (201) and via other computers (205) connected on a network tothe server (201). These would generally be larger, more powerfulmachines, than the handheld computer (103) and could allow for thecapturing of alternative data and for more powerful computationalactions. In an embodiment, such systems (205) could be provided at theevidence locker, but could also be provided at remote locations, such asforensics laboratory or as part of a mobile command center.

In effect, once entries have been uploaded from the initial gatheringactivity to the central computer (201), the accessibility of theevidence entries will generally increase as the information is movedfrom a single handheld computer (103) under the control of a singleinvestigator (I), to a network accessible by many. This uploadcorresponds with the physical evidence (E) being made similarlyaccessible with the evidence (E) going from being at the remote crimescene, to being stored in a centrally accessible evidence locker (20)with such central storage, an interested investigator may be able toreview the evidence entries and provide updates or connect them withcases. FIG. 19 shows a screen (1404) which provides the suspect list(410) in a case. In FIG. 19, the information generally available to theinvestigator is the same as that of FIGS. 4-5B, but is provided in alarger more complex form, as computer (205) may have a larger display,more powerful processor and increased or simplified data entry tools.The screen (1901) also indicates the investigator (I) (1903) who enteredthe information.

Generally, once the evidence (E) has been placed in the evidence locker(203), the handheld computer (103) on which it was originally enteredwill not be used in conjunction with it anymore. Instead, a user who isaccessing the evidence (E) would use one of the remote terminals (205)to scan the evidence (E) in or out. Further, that user may enteradditional information for the case (310). For example, the user mayperform a ballistics analysis of a firearm. The results of that analysismay be added to the case file for that firearm as additional evidence.This will work whether the additional information is physical or iselectronic.

While computer (205) may be used instead of computer (103), thefunctionality of the device (103) in connecting the chain of custody isstill maintained. Specifically, when a user wishes to obtain or checkout a piece of evidence (E), they will essentially go through the sameprocess investigator (I) used to initially set up the evidence (E). Whenthey go to obtain the evidence, they will obtain the bag (1702) with theevidence (E) they want by looking it up on the central computer system(201). They will then obtain the bag (1702) which will be checked out tothem. FIG. 20 provides for an embodiment of a screen used on a remotecomputer (205) or central computer (201) showing a transfer to a newindividual. The listing (2003) shows the current chain of custody withthe evidence (E) having been passed from the investigator (I) to theevidence room and having been checked out from the evidence room to thecourthouse. Listing (2005) provides for the evidence associated with theselected case and checkout section (2001) provides for the checkoutdetails to be entered. In the depicted embodiment, the checkout sectionallows for a partial checkout, as indicated, where a unit (2013) is lessthan the entire available. To check out the evidence (E) a user wouldenter the checkout “From” and “To” fields (2011) and then indicate thetransfer is to occur using button (2009). As can be seen in FIG. 20, anopen entry is already prepared for the forthcoming transfer showing who(2015) performed the transfer.

When evidence (E) is taken to the lab or wherever they are to work onthe evidence (E), the user may verify the contents of the bag (1702),match the label (1701) and will perform whatever tests are appropriate.The test results can then be entered into the same system (205), or canbe connected to the piece of evidence (E) utilizing the tag number(1515) or (1535) or other interconnection if legacy systeminteroperability is necessary. The evidence (E) will then be checkedback in again verifying that the bag (1702) includes the itemsidentified on its label (1701) and that the bag label (1701) matches thebag (1702) originally checked out.

This process can repeat however many times is necessary to test thecontents of the bag (1702). As should be apparent the chain of custodycan be made more robust by the various computer automated checksperformed during the process. Specifically, as the tag (1701) and bag(1702) all include computer readable indicia, the indicia can be matchedby machine eliminating the possibility of human error in writing downthe identifiers. Further, as the evidence (E) is identified by tag(1501) or (1503) and the tag (1501) or (1503) is connected to both thebag (1702) and the specific case, it becomes increasingly difficult fora mistake to be made which associates the item with an incorrect case.

It should be recognized that one of the key purposes of the chain ofcustody is to limit the possibility of evidence being tampered with and,if facts arise indicating that tampering may have occurred, to try andnarrow down who may have committed it and what effect it may have had.Effectively, by knowing who has the evidence (E) in a checkout and whoperformed (2015) the checkout, you know who has the opportunity totamper with or modify the evidence (E). Thus, should $100 be placed intoevidence, and 6 months later it be discovered there is only $50 present,the people who had access to the bag (1702) and could have taken theother $50 is generally known. Further, as the evidence (E) is generallychecked every time, should the error be detected, generally workingbackwards provides the most likely culprits in the modification.

While it is impossible to prevent individuals who are working with theevidence (E) from trying to defeat the system (100), or from tamperingwith the evidence (E), systems (100) generally reduce the ability to doso. In prior systems where identification was more manually intensiveand relied upon physical signatures and the like, it was easier for anindividual to forge credentials or provide false information. Further,as such chain was more prone to mistakes, the robustness of the systemcould fall into question even though the chain of custody was secure.For example, a reversal of two digits in writing down an evidence bagnumber may not be noticed until much later. When noticed, this couldcall into question if the right items was reviewed even though thenature of the mistake indicates that it is unlikely.

Further, once the evidence (E) was in the hands of a potential culpritin tampering, it could be a relatively easy matter for them to tamperwith the evidence (E) without detection. Effectively, in a traditionalsystem a piece of evidence (E) may be limited by description. Thus, ifthe description simply stated that the object was a stack of $100 billstotaling $1000 tied with a string, somebody may be able to come in andsubstitute some or all of the bills with other bills, modify the stringholding them, or otherwise tamper with the specific items with arelatively low chance of detection.

The present system provides for improved chain of custody as it providesfor an increased number of hard to forge elements all of which must befoiled to tamper with the evidence (E). For example, in the abovesituation, the presence of photographic evidence associated with thephysical evidence can reveal specifics not reported, e.g. the serialnumber of the top bill, the color of the string, and the type of knotused in the tie. Still further, the connection with the tag (1501) or(1503), which is designed to be hard to remove and to indicate that ithas been removed can further make such tampering difficult as the tag(1501) or (1503) would have to be duplicated and placed in the sameposition (as again indicated by photographs).

In addition to providing for a more robust system by simply providingmore information connected with the evidence (E) to help show itsuniqueness, it is also possible in the system to provide for hiddeninformation which can be used to further insure that tampering isdetected and thwarted. In a simple example, a person checking out theevidence (E) may not have access to the original evidence entry on thecomputer system (205) made by the investigator (I). Because of this,they may not know what photographs were taken or what additionalinformation may be known about the evidence (E). They are simplypresented with a raw specimen. This can make it more difficult for themto get all details correct if they are attempting to tamper with theevidence (E).

In order to still further improve upon the chain of custody, in anembodiment the present system provides for a background recording whichis used to show all changes that have been made to the electronicrecords, the time they were made, and who made them as well as any otherdesirable system function such as the terminal (205) used or thelocation of the computer (103). As should be apparent from the above,one of the strengths of the system is that it allows for corrections andmodifications on various pieces of evidence (E) over time. Thus, reportsand analysis results can be done and connected with the evidence (E),further if additional information is known (e.g. another suspect isadded) the information can be updated to allow it to remain current anduseful for investigators.

The ability to modify, however, does introduce the ability to tamper.For example, a user can originally state that a package of money had$100 and then alter it later to say $50. If no other person had yetchecked the number of bills present, it is impossible to know forcertain which amount was actually found. The system deals with this byrecording changes made, by whom (that is via who's account), and whenthe change was made. Thus, should an individual check out a particularevidence bag (1702) and then return the bag (1702) with an indicationthat a piece of evidence was destroyed by testing and no longer in thebag (1702), the time and date of that occurrence is recorded. Thus,should such change be added at a particular time, and that timecorrespond with the time that the results of such a destructive test beadded to the evidence, the modification is probably legitimate. If suchchange occurs without support supporting the reason why, then the changemay be suspect.

Similarly, should an individual decide to alter an amount of money inthe bag from $100 to $50 the time and date of that modification is alsorecorded. While the above may be carried out for legitimate reasons, theidea of recording the occurrence of change provides that the changeswill need to be explained and should make it more difficult fortampering to occur.

For example, if a user originally enters in the field that there is$1000, but when the evidence is checked in the next review shows thatthere is only $100, the reason may be as simple as typographical error.However, the issue may also be that someone has taken the other $900 anda flag may be indicated for review. Obviously, the presence of otheridentifying information (e.g. the photographs taken of the evidence) canfurther verify one story or the other.

Obviously, no system can completely prevent the misbehavior of the userstasked with using it. Should a user wish to steal from a stack of billsthat is to be collected, they could always do so prior to the billsbeing entered into the system (100) at all. However, present systemsalso cannot deal with these problems and no technical solution can, asof yet, force individuals to behave in a certain fashion. One advantageof the present system, however, is that once the evidence (E) is in thesystem (100), the system (100) generally provides for a reducedpossibility of tampering even by those purposefully trying to do so.Thus, from a legal admissibility point of view, the system (100)generally provides for a more robust chain of custody and provides foreasier introduction of evidence (E) at trial, generally with fewerchallenges.

At the same time, the system (100), by providing for a centralrepository of both physical evidence, and associated notes,observations, and other interpreted and photographic evidence, allowsfor more complete records to be maintained and searched. E.g. should afirearm be brought in, it can be possible to search all unconnectedballistics records to determine if the firearm was used in thecommission of an, as yet, unconnected crime. Further, upon suchconnection being made, the central computer system (201) can indicatethe connection and allow for evidence (E) to be listed in appropriatecases.

Still further, the connection of the various parts of the evidence entryat the time of the evidence entering chain of custody provides for anincreased number of connections to help verify that the evidence (E),even in changing hands multiple times, is still the same item that waspicked up initially and provides additional information which may not beavailable to connect to a case in present systems. Thus, the chain ofcustody not only gains legal strength but practically is generallybetter connected and serves as a more useful investigatory tool.

While the above has primarily focused on the system (100) as a systemfor the gathering and storing of evidence (E) to improve chain ofcustody from the crime scene (10) to the evidence storage facility (20),it should be recognized that the system (100) can also provide forpowerful backend functionality which can assist in both the organizationand operation of the evidence storage facility (20) as well as assistingwith the investigatory work of the Investigator (I).

Computers such as computer (205) will generally be available at theinvestigatory facility (both inside and outside the evidence storagefacility (201)) and may be placed on individual investigator's (I) desksor in other easily accessible places. Using these devices, the system(100) can be utilized as a method for searching, sorting, collating, orotherwise parsing evidence (E) in a manner that is useful for aninvestigator (I). It can also provide for logistical benefits for thosethat operate and maintain secure storage (203).

In this disclosure, the components of the evidence storage facility (20)and other facilities where computers (205) and (201) are located may bereferred to generally as the back end facilities. In these facilities,the system (100) is no longer directly associated with the collection ofevidence (E), as it was at the front end (that is, the crime scene (10))of an investigation, but are now used to assist with various actionswith regards to handling and working with evidence (E) that has alreadybeen collected.

In the first instance, an investigator (I) can be provided with theability to collate information from all the various cases by using avariety of search methods. While FIG. 19 has previously been discussedin conjunction with the ability to review suspects in a multiple ofcases, it is not the only option. FIG. 21 provides a screen allowing theinvestigator (I) at a back end facility to review a list of cases (2101)and obtain general information about who created or opened cases anddetails of the case in the same manner as was shown on the handhelddevice (103).

In a similar fashion, FIG. 22 provides for the ability to reviewoutstanding evidence from an evidence list (2201) presenting theevidence (E) by identifier. This ability can be particularly usefulshould an investigator (I) be interested in determining what aparticular evidence bag (1702) or piece of evidence comprises. Forexample, should the operator of facility (203) locate a piece ofevidence (E) which appears to be old and possibly should have alreadybeen destroyed, they can locate that particular piece of evidence (E) byits record and review the details of it to associate it with, forexample, a case or particular investigator (I).

As should be apparent, as FIG. 19 discussed with suspects, it is alsopossible to provide a list of victims (2301) as indicated in FIG. 23

While the above can be useful for investigatory work, they will oftenrequire a knowledge that a certain piece of evidence (E), suspect,victim, or case is present on the server (201) and now it is identifiedin order to be most effectively utilized. There may very well come asituation where an investigator (I) wants to know if a specific piece ofevidence, or specific piece of information, is in the database but hasno knowledge of the specific identifier of the evidence (E) or to whatit may be associated. For example, if the investigator (I) wasinvestigating a series of related crimes, they may want to perform asearch to determine if other similar cases are listed but which have notbeen connected with the present ones.

FIG. 25 provides for a case list that allows for the activation of afilter (2501). Being able to view cases that have been filtered providesfor the ability to make connections and to collate materials on theserver (201) in a controlled fashion. Effectively, it provides anability to efficiently search. In FIG. 25, the filter (2501) may besetup to filter the cases in the case list (2503) by a variety ofdifferent methods. These include, but are not limited to, by incidentdate (2511), by date of last modification, (2513), by case number(2515), by type (2517), by DSN (2519) of the investigator (I), by thestate (2521), the filing agency (2523), by the location agency (2525) orby the precinct (2527).

Use of a filter in order to perform searches or to provide for aspecific subset of data is well known and an investigator (I) would beable to gain the expected benefits from being able to filter results andexamine subsets. Specifically, the Investigator (I) could review theircases or cases of another investigator (I), review cases of similartypes to look for trends, or even to search for a specific case based onknown facts or pieces of evidence (E).

When reviewing a specific case, the system (100) will generally providefor ways to review all the information associated with that particularcase in a coherent fashion. In this way an investigator (I) can reviewall evidence (E) associated with a case. The screens of FIGS. 24A-24Cprovide for an embodiment of a display that can be used to provide theinformation for a sample case. As should be apparent from the FIGS., thespecific case view shows the case information (2401) for the case beingviewed. The case view also shows a listing of all the remarks attachedto the case (2403). These may have been generated in the field using thehandheld computer (103) or may be added or edited in the case view ofFIG. 24.

Attached to each case are tabs or folders (2407) which provide for thevarious lists of victims (2407A), suspects (2407B), and evidence (2407C)to be switched between and viewed. As can be seen in the various viewsof FIG. 24, the details of the information that was entered with theevidence collection at the crime scene (10) and disabled in FIGS. 10-13is visible in area (2409). Generally as a piece of evidence (E) (e.g.white T-shirt (2411)) is selected, the information displayed in area(2409) will change. Further, as is illustrated in FIGS. 24A through 24D,the area (2409) may include additional tabs (2413) for different piecesof information about the particular evidence (E) selected allowinggeneral access to the collected and entered information.

It should be apparent from the above description that once theinformation from the handheld (103) is uploaded to the server (201), theinformation does not remain static and may be used and manipulated bythe investigator (I) both in ongoing investigations, or to obtaininformation from cases which are closed.

While the above components of the backend have focused on the ability toreview existing evidence (E) information, in many cases, the case willeventually be closed. When this happens, it is important to make surethat the case records, and the evidence (E) associated with the case,are properly handled. In some cases, evidence (E) may need to bemaintained in long term storage essentially forever (or at least untilall parties involved in the case have died). In other circumstances,long-term storage of evidence (E) may be undesirable (for example,because it presents a biological threat or because it takes up too muchspace) and the evidence (E) will need to be destroyed or otherwisedisposed of once it is expected to no longer be needed. One examplecould be a situation where the defendant has completed all availablecourt appearances. In a still further case, the evidence (E) may need tobe returned to an original owner, or may be sold to raise money for theinvestigating agency and knowledge of when such actions should be takenout are valuable.

One ability of the backend system is to provide that the necessaryresultant disposal of the evidence (E) can be entered when the evidence(E) is deposited at the facility (203) and alerts can be setup toindicate to an investigator (I), or any other party, that it is time todispose of the evidence (E). FIG. 26 provides for an embodiment of anotification system by indicating a screen whereby an evidence alert(2601) may be created. The evidence alert (2601) will be associated witha specific piece of evidence (E) and/or with an evidence bag (1702) andwill provide for an instruction as to what to do, and a date on whichthe alert becomes active. Thus, if a certain piece of evidence is to bedisposed of 5 years after the case closes, the evidence alert (2601)will be setup to alert an individual (2603) responsible for the Evidence(E) at the desired time. This individual may be the Investigator (I), anindividual responsible for the Evidence (E) storage, or any otherperson, as appropriate. Further, alerts can be simultaneously sent tomultiple individuals if that is desirable.

Once the alert has been set it will operate in the background until theappointed time when it triggers. Alert notifications may be provided inany fashion but will generally utilize electronic communication methodssuch as, but not limited to, sending email or providing an alertnotification through the system (100). FIG. 27 provides an embodiment ofan alert reminder (2701) which may operate through system (100). Whentriggered, an alert reminder (2701) is provided to the appropriateindividual telling them that a piece of evidence (E) needs to be dealtwith and how to deal with it. Generally, this individual, upon receivingthe alert (2701), will either deal with the evidence (E) as indicated orput the alert in a sleep mode. If they deal with the evidence (E) asindicated, they would mark that the alert (2701) has been completed(2703). If the individual does not currently have the time or desire tocomplete the alert, or if they feel that the Evidence (E) needs to beretained for a longer time for whatever reason, they may instead chooseto set a reminder to close the alert but have it return at a later time.This may either be a short term sleep (e.g. if they got the alert (2701)at or near crime scene and wanted the alert (2701) to reappear when theyreturned) or may be a longer term delay (for example, if an appeal isstill pending).

It should be recognized that because the system (100) operates withpotentially sensitive data, user control is desirable. FIGS. 28-29provide for general administration of investigators (I) on the systemand their access. In particular, the investigators (I) may be added andprovided with various abilities (2801) including the ability to view,edit, and access various types of data. In this way, investigators (I)with different areas of expertise and need to interact with the system(100) can be provided with access appropriate for their expected use.This type of central control to setup and control users will generallybe provided only to certain administrators to provide for furtherenhanced security in the system and, as discussed previously, allchanges may be recorded.

As part of the user setup and monitoring, it may also be possible for anadministrator to view the alerts (2901) of investigators (I). In thisway they can verify that the investigator (I) is actually completingalerts (and not just putting them off) and should a piece of evidence(E) have been disposed of which is later needed or where there arequestions as to the disposal, they can review the alert specifics tomake sure that standard protocols were carried out.

While the invention has been disclosed in connection with certainpreferred embodiments, this should not be taken as a limitation to allof the provided details. Modifications and variations of the describedembodiments may be made without departing from the spirit and scope ofthe invention, and other embodiments should be understood to beencompassed in the present disclosure as would be understood by those ofordinary skill in the art.

1. A system for the tracking of evidence, the system comprising: anevidence tag including a machine readable indicia; a handheld device,said handheld device including a camera and a memory; an evidence bag; aprinter; and a central server computer; wherein, said evidence tag isdesigned to be attached to a piece of evidence at the time of collectionin such fashion as to indicate if said evidence tag is later removed;wherein said evidence is identified using said handheld device, anevidence entry comprising a description and a photograph of saidevidence is stored in said memory; wherein said evidence is placed insaid evidence bag once said evidence entry has been entered into saidhandheld device; wherein said printer is used to print an evidence bagidentification label, which label is attached to said evidence bag usedfor said evidence in such as fashion as to allow indicate said evidencetag is later removed; wherein said evidence entry in said memory istransferred from said handheld device to said central server computerand said evidence is transferred to a storage facility, and wherein saidcentral server computer provides for an alert system which indicateswhen said evidence bag is to be disposed of.
 2. The system of claim 1wherein said evidence tag includes a machine readable code.
 3. Thesystem of claim 2 wherein said handheld device includes a device forreading said machine readable code.
 4. The system of claim 3 whereinsaid machine readable code is also printed on said evidence bagidentification label.
 5. The system of claim 1 wherein said evidence bagidentification label includes a machine readable code identifying saidevidence bag.
 6. The system of claim 1 wherein said handheld deviceuploads to said central server computer wirelessly.
 7. The system ofclaim 1 wherein said handheld device is directly connected to saidcentral server computer to transfer information to it.
 8. The system ofclaim 1 further comprising: a remote terminal attached to said centralserver computer which can access said information after it is uploadedto said central server computer.
 9. The system of claim 8 wherein saidremote terminal comprises a separate handheld scanner.
 10. The system ofclaim 1 wherein said handheld device attaches internal information tosaid evidence entry based on a photograph taken by said camera.
 11. Thesystem of claim 10 wherein said internal information is selected fromthe group consisting of: a time said photograph was taken, a date saidphotograph was taken, and a location of said handheld device when saidphotograph was taken.
 12. The system of claim 1 wherein said handhelddevice comprises a handheld computer.